# Music Downloading



## goldenquagsire (Apr 14, 2009)

I know that there are a few music-heads here, so it's worth asking here.

Okay, so obviously I could just go torrent music. Or download it in any number of illegal ways. But those methods can be dangerous, and although I'm not a complete idiot and know how to avoid viruses most of the time, I'd rather not take too many chances.

Furthermore, I kinda feel wrong about just downloading a load of music en masse without paying for it. However, I can't be arsed to hunt down CDs and stuff. Also, I know that iTunes is shit. So basically, my question is as follows:

What is a good, paid-for music downloading service/site that is relatively cheap, doesn't have any irritating DRM shit and is certified virus-free?

Of course, I could just google a few sites, but what I really want is opinions, experience! What works best for you guys?


----------



## IcySapphire (Apr 14, 2009)

I've bought stuff from Amazon with no problem--all their tracks are DRM free, and reasonably priced (about 89/99 cents a song and whole albums for less than $10-$20)


----------



## Lady Grimdour (Apr 14, 2009)

I can vouch for Amazon. I ordered almost my whole collection from there.

Oh, and torrents are safe. I've done it myself quite a few times with old games and such. the trick is to read the comments and get the most downloaded torrents; it's bound to say when it has a virus.


----------



## goldenquagsire (Apr 14, 2009)

I would use torrents, but I'm just that bit paranoid. Not only viruses and stuff, but getting caught. I know it's extremely rare for anyone to get caught, but like I said, paranoia.

Also there's a bit of guilt at not paying artists for their work, but it's not a huge deal for me. :3


----------



## Music Dragon (Apr 14, 2009)

goldenquagsire said:


> Also there's a bit of guilt at not paying artists for their work, but it's not a huge deal for me. :3


Cue Furret!


----------



## goldenquagsire (Apr 14, 2009)

Yeah, I know that most of the money from CDs goes to manufacturers etc. etc. but w/e. Can I be excused for having morals just this once? :P


----------



## Departure Song (Apr 14, 2009)

Are you implying someone who chooses to support artists directly instead of give money to people who think they can take ownership over _other peoples' art_ lacks morals?

Aaah, but I'm just being an ass. Go for Amazon, if you must.


----------



## goldenquagsire (Apr 14, 2009)

Departure Song said:


> Are you implying someone who chooses to support artists directly instead of give money to people who think they can take ownership over _other peoples' art_ lacks morals?


If by "support artists directly" you mean go to gigs, then I'm afraid I have neither the money nor the time to go to a great many live shows. Even if my contribution via bought music is minimal, it's still there.

I'm not saying that either of us lacks morals. Just that we go about different ways of reassuring our consciences. :P


----------



## Departure Song (Apr 14, 2009)

Not buying an album is more supportive of an artist, in my opinion. ;) But I don't want to turn this into an argument unless you want to. :P


----------



## goldenquagsire (Apr 14, 2009)

Well, I've already got the answer I needed, so why not? :P

I think that if I bought a band's albums and didn't go to their shows, it would be more moral than if I didn't buy their albums and didn't go to their shows. In scenario A, the band are getting at least some of my money, no matter how little, in exchange for their art. In scenario B, they aren't getting a single penny.


----------



## Tarvos (Apr 14, 2009)

Problem is that the difference in money between a) and b) is minimal and that the money spent on corporations only enhances their idea of supremacy.


----------



## Departure Song (Apr 14, 2009)

(This is assuming your artist of choice is releasing albums on an RIAA label.)

In scenario A, you are giving the artist a laughably small amount of money - most sources point to _less than a cent per CD_. That's not enough for anybody to live off of and is more of an insult than anything else. This isn't really what I don't like, though...

In scenario A, you're also giving money to the record labels. This is where it begins to make me just a little angry. They don't care about music at all. They care about numbers. They don't really care if Britney Spears is a valid artist or not - all they care about is money and Billboard positions.


> They had a chance to move forward, to evolve with technology and address the changing needs of consumers - and they didn't. Instead, they panicked - they showed their hand as power-hungry dinosaurs, and they started to demonize their own customers, the people whose love of music had given them massive profits for decades. They used their unfair record contracts - the ones that allowed them to own all the music - and went after children, grandparents, single moms, even deceased great grandmothers - alongside many other common people who did nothing more than download some songs and leave them in a shared folder - something that has become the cultural norm to the iPod generation. Joining together in what has been referred to as an illegal cartel and using the RIAA as their attack dogs, the record labels have spent billions of dollars attempting to scare people away from downloading music.


This article is a bit lengthy, but it's _so_ well-written and interesting that I'd encourage anyone who wants to know more about this issue to read it.


----------



## Dewgong (Apr 15, 2009)

^ that article was extremely well written, yes.

i enjoyed it greatly. thank you for linking.


----------



## foreign contaminant (Apr 15, 2009)

i liked that article a lot, too.


----------



## goldenquagsire (Apr 15, 2009)

Hrm, I read the article a while back. Interesting, certainly, and it makes good points. However, from that bit you quoted, I can show you problem #2 I have with torrenting and other forms of illegal download.



> and went after children, grandparents, single moms, even deceased great grandmothers - alongside many other common people who did nothing more than download some songs and leave them in a shared folder - something that has become the cultural norm to the iPod generation.





> the record labels have spent billions of dollars attempting to scare people away from downloading music.


See, as rare as it is for people to get caught, there's still the risk.


----------



## Felidire (Apr 15, 2009)

goldenquagsire said:


> Okay, so obviously I could just go torrent music. Or download it in any number of illegal ways. But those methods can be dangerous


I don't see how it's even remotely dangerous. I just use limewire to check music, if I like the band then I buy an album or something off eBay. Apparently, music on limewire with no "BitRate" is a virus; if it has a bitrate then it's supposedly virus free, I literally never get viruses on LimeWire.

If I were you, and I felt bad for ripping off artists(which I don't), then i'd just download a heap of songs and either order the CD's with the _good_ music on it from Amazon/eBay, or give money to charity (or whatever).

Better yet, Download the music and Invest the money into getting a decent Anti-Virus so you're not shit scared of "taking too many chances".
---



> I think that if I bought a band's albums and didn't go to their shows, it would be more moral than if I didn't buy their albums and didn't go to their shows. In scenario A, the band are getting at least some of my money, no matter how little, in exchange for their art. In scenario B, they aren't getting a single penny.


Well technically the guy selling you the album gets the money, because they've already purchased the album(in-stock) from the band and are selling it at a rip-off price, but I agree; I tend to buy their albums, but avoid $130 gigs held in distant towns which I can't be assed driving to.




Dewgong said:


> ^ that article was extremely well written, yes.
> 
> i enjoyed it greatly. thank you for linking.





Dewgong said:


> ^ that article was extremely well written, yes.
> 
> i enjoyed it greatly. thank you for linking.


 Double post maeks mah eyes go t3h wonkeh '.`


----------



## surskitty (Apr 15, 2009)

Felidire said:


> Double post maeks mah eyes go t3h wonkeh '.`


Oh no, another fluke double post.  I must complain about it rather than reporting one of the two posts and saying that it's yet another server bleep.


I download music (both from mediafire/rapidshare links on LJ and from waffles.fm), buy stuff off iTunes or Amazon occasionally, and go to concerts whenever I can.  :3


----------



## Tarvos (Apr 15, 2009)

I download from mediafire/rapidshare stuff too, but if I like a CD I end up buying it anyhow.


----------



## foreign contaminant (Apr 15, 2009)

Watershed said:


> I download from mediafire/rapidshare stuff too, but if I like a CD I end up buying it anyhow.


i am this way too. i don't download very often; when i do, i usually download something i just can't find in town. i download what i know i will like and i know i will pay for eventually. or, like i've done in recent days, i download a digital copy of something i already own on "archaic" formats, like vinyl, cassettes, etc.


----------



## Tarvos (Apr 15, 2009)

I don't like vinyl or cassettes, sue me. I download a lot of stuff I like just to listen to it a few times (and I forget to delete most of it so loads of stuff I listen to on a semi-regular basis is floating around on my music server). If I like it a lot, say 8-10/10 range, I'll buy it. If it's a band I know I will love anyway (like it's the new Dream Theater album) I just buy it anyway.


----------



## foreign contaminant (Apr 15, 2009)

oh, the vinyl/cassette isn't really that big a deal. i can see why people still devote themselves to it - i plan to buy more music on vinyl, myself - but some music sounds bad on vinyl just because of the _type_ of music it is. i was heartbroken when i listened to deerhunter on vinyl; the best song on microcastle skipped and its sound quality fizzed out greatly in comparison to the rest of the album. shoegaze-esque music does not work on vinyl, plain and simple.

otherwise, i'm the same. i have yet to download an album i haven't liked.


----------



## Tarvos (Apr 15, 2009)

i have downloaded albums I have disliked and they keep floating around but most of the albums I like I own anyhow. not all. there are a few I have to track down still. which I am lazy with as I have the .mp3 files.


----------



## Departure Song (Apr 15, 2009)

None of my favorite bands release anything in the States, anyway. Importing is so expensive that I can only afford to get my absolute favorite releases.


----------



## Tarvos (Apr 15, 2009)

yurup is cooler


----------



## #1 bro (Apr 15, 2009)

I download music via an extremely unorthodox method:

step 1: download the firefox add-on "download helper".

step 2: go to rhapsody.com

step 3: rhapsody.com is a site that lets you listen to any song you want, whenever, for a one time fee. however, it has a free trial that lets you listen to any 25 songs you want. it only counts as listening to a song if you listen to the first twenty seconds. 

step 4: find the song you want to download using the search function, then click on it. the "rhapsody player" should launch, and start playing your song. quickly pause it so that your free trial doesn't run out. 

step 5: the little "download helper" logo in the toolbar should start spinning. click on the arrow next to (below? can't remember) it, and an mp3 file named [a nine digit or so number].mp3 will appear. click on it, and it will download. 


it's a really odd method, but I can't think of any downside to it. it's quicker than using torrents, totally safe, has a huge selection, is probably less traceable than torrent sites (because paying users are downloading these mp3 files too), and I dunno about quality stuff, but these tracks aren't noticeably worse than CD quality, so unless you're a huge audiophile you probably won't care.

if there are downsides, I'd appreciate you telling me!


----------



## Departure Song (Apr 15, 2009)

Zeta Reticuli said:


> it's a really odd method, but I can't think of any downside to it. it's quicker than using torrents, totally safe, has a huge selection, is probably less traceable than torrent sites (because paying users are downloading these mp3 files too), and I dunno about quality stuff, but these tracks aren't noticeably worse than CD quality, so unless you're a huge audiophile you probably won't care.


Streaming quality is *always* infinitely worse than CD rips, even for lossy formats like mp3 and ogg.

Another suggestion: mp3_share. Just join (you'll need to make an LJ account if you don't have one), check the tags to see if someone uploaded what you want, and if they didn't, post a request and you'll usually have it shortly. It's what I used before I discovered torrents.


----------



## #1 bro (Apr 15, 2009)

Departure Song said:


> Streaming quality is *always* infinitely worse than CD rips, even for lossy formats like mp3 and ogg.


I said _noticeably_ worse, because I can't tell the difference. I mean, maybe if I listened really really closely I could, but regardless, it wouldn't be enough to prevent me from enjoying the music.


----------



## Departure Song (Apr 15, 2009)

If you can't tell the difference, there must be something wrong with your hearing. It's pretty noticeable.


----------



## surskitty (Apr 15, 2009)

Could also be that it doesn't bother them.


----------



## goldenquagsire (Apr 15, 2009)

Departure Song said:


> Another suggestion: mp3_share. Just join (you'll need to make an LJ account if you don't have one), check the tags to see if someone uploaded what you want, and if they didn't, post a request and you'll usually have it shortly. It's what I used before I discovered torrents.


damn, I totally forgot about LJ. I remember someone mentioning it before, but I lost the link. cheers.


----------



## Departure Song (Apr 15, 2009)

Could be, but to say there's no audible difference is ridiculous.


----------



## #1 bro (Apr 15, 2009)

_really?_ because I don't think I have a hearing problem, and I went and downloaded "Goodbye Blue Sky" off of rhapsody, and switched back and forth between that and a version burned from a CD, and I really couldn't tell the difference...

I mean, I can definitely tell the difference between CD quality, and say... a youtube video, but... not this


----------



## Departure Song (Apr 16, 2009)

Zeta Reticuli said:


> and switched back and forth between that and a version burned from a CD


It really depends on how you ripped it, with what codec and program, and if the CD you ripped it from is the original. I'd imagine that any streaming site wouldn't dare go above 128kb/s, which is pretty shitty all around.


----------



## Dewgong (Apr 16, 2009)

Departure Song said:


> None of my favorite bands release anything in the States, anyway. Importing is so expensive that I can only afford to get my absolute favorite releases.


ugh i know. it upsets me greatly.


----------



## Tarvos (Apr 16, 2009)

Departure Song said:


> It really depends on how you ripped it, with what codec and program, and if the CD you ripped it from is the original. I'd imagine that any streaming site wouldn't dare go above 128kb/s, which is pretty shitty all around.


I generally rip to 192 kb/s because I listen to a lot on my mp3 player with earphones and any more on that is fucking overkill. There is storage to consider too.


----------



## Departure Song (Apr 16, 2009)

192 kb/s is pretty good, because most people can't actually hear the parts that are cut off with that encoding. If you really want to save space, though, VBR is much better - V2 if you're aiming for a 192 kb/s average - as CBR is pretty outdated and takes up a significantly larger amount of space.


----------



## Lady Grimdour (Apr 16, 2009)

Departure Song said:


> 192 kb/s is pretty good, because most people can't actually hear the parts that are cut off with that encoding. If you really want to save space, though, VBR is much better - V2 if you're aiming for a 192 kb/s average - as CBR is pretty outdated and takes up a significantly larger amount of space.


192?

With torrents I usually get 320 at least. Hence why I use them now.


----------



## Tarvos (Apr 16, 2009)

320 is overkill. You don't need that much on a stereo mp3-player, takes up too much space.


----------



## Felidire (Apr 16, 2009)

surskitty said:


> Oh no, another fluke double post. I must complain about it rather than reporting one of the two posts and saying that it's yet another server bleep.


Considered it, but was unsure if "report" served for that function.
So I figured i'd just write a totally pointless comment. <3


----------



## Dewgong (Apr 16, 2009)

because totally pointless comments are always helpful.


----------



## Tarvos (Apr 16, 2009)

Dewgong said:


> because totally pointless comments are always helpful.


Pot, this is kettle. It wants its colour back.

I should buy more CD's but I am lazy and nearing brokedom.


----------



## Departure Song (Apr 16, 2009)

Grimdour The Desecrater said:


> 192?
> 
> With torrents I usually get 320 at least. Hence why I use them now.


320 is overkill. _All_ CBR is overkill.


----------



## Lady Grimdour (Apr 16, 2009)

Departure Song said:


> 320 is overkill. _All_ CBR is overkill.


A bit, yeah. But not by much.

I compared an old Youtube rip (using the same method explained earlier) of a song with the 320kbps version and the rip sounded like a muffled bootleg using a cassette as to the CBR. 192 is as Watershed said, for those who want to save space.

Plus no one seeds 192s, much less 128s.


----------



## Departure Song (Apr 17, 2009)

No, _use VBR if you want to save space_.


----------



## Lady Grimdour (Apr 17, 2009)

Bad news, sports fans.

The guys behind ThePirateBay have been arrested and sentenced a year plus a large sum of $3 million. The site still runs as normal, though.


----------



## foreign contaminant (Apr 17, 2009)

rapidshare and megaupload still get the job done. they sometimes require a bit of digging, though.


----------



## Felidire (Apr 17, 2009)

Dewgong said:


> because totally pointless comments are always helpful.


Word~


----------



## opaltiger (Apr 17, 2009)

Grimdour The Desecrater said:


> Bad news, sports fans.
> 
> The guys behind ThePirateBay have been arrested and sentenced a year plus a large sum of $3 million. The site still runs as normal, though.


that trial means absolutely nothing. watch them appeal, and watch the case get lost for years.

especially if they take it to european courts


----------



## Tarvos (Apr 19, 2009)

opal. The trial was held in Sweden.


----------

